I pledge allegiance

To the Flag

Of the United States of America

And to the Republic

For which it stands

One nation

Under God

Indivisible

With liberty and justice

For all

When was the last time you really thought about the words that you had to speak everyday at the beginning of class throughout your childhood?  At that time, after awhile, you spoke it by rote while barely placing your hand over your heart, not really paying attention to what you were saying, giggling with your friend at the next desk over about some joke on the playground.  So over time, it lost all meaning.

But suddenly, your rights are stripped away, and you think, “How the hell did this happen?”  And then you remember.  “Didn’t I pledge something, about a Republic?”  And suddenly, that droning recital you gave every morning at school has a whole lot of meaning.

I pledge allegiance

Those of us fighting for our equal rights have been accused of being non-American, of trying to thwart the very foundation of our country.  Yet, if I remember right, my history teacher told me that the very reason our country exists was because the colonists who worked their hands to the bone to establish this country (or worked their slaves’ hands to the bone), believed they didn’t have a voice in how they were governed.  “Taxation without representation,” became their motto.  And if I’m not confused, am I not paying taxes NOW for numerous benefits I’m being denied?  Where’s my representation?  So fighting for my rights, my equal rights, to those benefits, is in the exact nature of how our country even began!  I’m standing by my allegiance!



To the Flag

Of the United States of America

. . . 48, 49, 50.  Yep, there’s still fifty stars on that flag.  Meaning, all states make up the Union.  Oh, wait, there’s thirteen stripes, representing the original thirteen colonies that fought for their voices to be heard.  So if I’m interpreting the flag correctly, those fifty stars stand in solidarity with the intent of the colonies to have equal representation.

So why is it that each state can decide for itself whether or not to allow some people marry?  Why is that I can get married in Connecticut, but then drive to North Carolina and suddenly not be married?  That doesn’t sound like a Union to me.

And speaking of the Union as a whole – the federal government doesn’t recognize some marriages while it does others?  Even going as far as to discriminate against its employees?  Doesn’t that go against the very essence of equal representation that its creation was based upon?

And to the Republic

For which it stands. . .

A republic.  A republic?  What’s that?

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). Then what’s a democracy?  A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).  Of course, if everyone remembered this, or agreed with said definitions, maybe I would still have my rights.  Hopefully, President Obama will remember.

One Nation

Under God

“Under God” was an addition first introduced by the Knights of Columbus.  Need I say more?  Their version of God is not quite mine.  I do believe in a higher power, but I don’t believe that the higher power is condemning me to hell for loving another person, whether or not they are of the same sex as I.



Indivisible

One nation.  I pledged that.  I’m not trying to tear us apart. I’m trying to regain my rights and fight for the rights that my fellow citizens already enjoy.  If anything, that’s unifying our nation. But I believe if someone is actively trying to take someone’s rights away, they’re trying to divide.  So in effect, are they not breaking their pledge?

With Liberty

I don’t have the liberty to marry whom I want.  I did.  At least in California.  But that was taken away.  But a bare majority.  (Re-read what a Republic is)

. . . and Justice for all.

Ah.  Justice.  I’m still waiting to see if the California Supreme Court will issue justice here.  During the Proposition 8 arguments, they kept referring to the will of the people, almost as if they had the final say.  But in a republic, “people” is singular.   Each individual has a say.   Each.  And their say is protected.  In a democracy, “people” is plural, and the majority rule.

I believe I am a “people.”  I believe my LGBT community is a “people.”   And my will, along with theirs, is to have the same rights as my fellow citizens.

Having those rights is justice.

Sources:

Citizens for Constitutional Government, “Republic vs. Democracy”

Wikipedia, “Addition of the words ‘Under God'”

In the last few weeks, CalBuzz has gotten a lot more content and a lot more interesting. It was started by a couple of former political editors, from the Merc and the Chronicle, so they have a bit of experience with California politics. The site itself is an ugly Blogspot blog, but I can forgive a bit of poor formatting if the content is interesting.

At any rate, I bring this up because they have asked all of the presumed candidates for governor to respond to a list of questions. Tom Campbell took up the offer first, answering the full questionnaire in the comments section to the original post.

First, I will say this, Campbell is clearly running to the left of Poizner and Whitman, but that doesn’t take a whole lot. On social issues, he wins the moderate argument. He is at the same place or to the left of Arnold on seemingly every social issue. He’s not really progressive on immigration, but I think you could find quite a few Dems that would be to the left of his position on that issue too. He spells it all out succinctly, in one run-on sentence:

Here are my positions, with respect for those who disagree: gay people should have the same rights as straight people, including the right to marry, a woman should make the choice on abortion up until the time of viability, we should not drill offshore where it would damage our fishing or tourism industry or run a higher risk of damaging the environment than shipping petroleum does, those who break our country’s laws to come here should not be treated as though they were legally here, except that public health should be accessible lest all be endangered by communicable disease, and children K-12 should be in school lest they be recruited for criminal activity, drivers’ licenses should not be granted to those who are not here legally , and we should use the California National Guard to assist in making our border more secure.

So, score one point for post-partisan Tom, and his courage to publicly and vocallyoppose Prop 8 should not be taken lightly. That being said, social issues aren’t the only positions he shares with Arnold.  He is also in love with the business lobby, just like the Governator. He even uses the words job-killer throughout the responses.  Here he is on splitting the Prop 13 property tax rolls:

When I was California Finance Director, I’d speak before the California Manufacturers’ Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and other groups, whose members included some employers thinking of moving out of the state. One of the only arguments I had for them to stay was Prop.13’s limits on taxing commercial property. If the employer moved to Texas, for instance, where the sales tax is lower and there is no income tax, the property might be reassessed once it was developed to the point that it could not move. That could not happen in California. So the “split roll” idea is job-killer.

He addresses the inequality of long-term homeowneres paying so much less than newer homeowners, and gives an answer about expectations of the purchasers.  But the inequality he doesn’t address is the inequality between businesses and residences.  Business property doesn’t transfer nearly as often as residential property, yet he isn’t concerned that the owner of a high rise is still paying taxes on property values based in 1978.

And, guess what he opposes democracy, still relying on the broken supermajority system. Because, you know, the majority would run amok and kill jobs.

The rule that used to apply was that a 2/3 vote was required only if the budget spent more than the Gann Limits: that is, more than the previous year adjusted for inflation and population. I’d reestablish that. Keep the 2/3 requirement for tax increases; otherwise, our taxes would rise above their already job-killing level.

Of course, he ignores the fact that if the majority hated the taxes so much, they could simply vote out the majority.  It is a basic tenant of democracy, that just doesn’t exist in California. Here in California, it is the minority that rules, not the majority.

And he still is a Republican, so there’s some garbage about how taxes really, really suck:

On taxes, we need to lower every tax that discourages jobs in our state. We need to get more in line with our competitor states’ levels on income tax, sales tax, and business tax. (A good start was in the recent budget deal’s adoption of the single sales factor for apportioning multi-state income: before that change, we were actually taxing employers more the more employees they had in our state.) We should eliminate the sales tax on productive machinery, and adopt a capital gains tax mirroring the federal one, to encourage investment in California that leads to jobs. I’d keep Prop. 13; without it, our number one marginal income tax rate, number one state sales tax, and number 3 state business tax make California a very unattractive place to hire people.

In the end, Campbell’s social positions will likely doom him in the GOP primary.  But, he should not be underestimated if he does somehow squeak into the general election.  He is running on Arnold’s campaign platform, which was quite successful for two elections.  It might be wearing thin these days, but a face lift could bring new life.  And the last thing we need is a repeat of Arnold.

In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that – if successful – would have awarded California’s electoral votes by Congressional District.  Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because everyone assumed it would give the G.O.P. presidential nominee an extra 19 votes.  California is a deep blue state, but parts of Orange County and the Central Valley are still reliably Republican.  New data from last November’s election, however, suggests that “Red California” is becoming less and less relevant.  Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that had long voted for Republican presidential candidates, and John McCain came close to losing three more.  All these districts are currently represented in Congress by Republicans, but a few incumbents came close last year to losing to Democratic challengers.  It’s only a matter of time before some of these districts will eventually flip.  None of this is a surprise, however, because the state’s Republican base is older, whiter and shrinking in size.  But the rate of this change is quite staggering, which explains why Republicans in the state legislature have clung to the “two-thirds rule” for passing a budget.  After all, it’s the only reason they have any power left in the state.

Thanks to the work of bloggers at the Swing State Project, it is now possible to quickly check the results of the last presidential election by Congressional District, and compare it with 2000 and 2004.  Congressional Quarterly even has a cool map that you can look at online.  What it shows for the future of California Republicans is not pretty.  None of us were surprised that Barack Obama won the Golden State by a 60-40 margin.  But the bigger story here is that “Red California” has become far less Republican.

Take the 24th Congressional District, which includes Ventura County and inland parts of Santa Barbara County.  The District is home to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, the same town where an all-white jury voted in 1992 to acquit the cops who beat up Rodney King.  Republican Elton Gallegy has been the Congressman there for 22 years, and he’s never had to deal with a tough challenger.  In fact, the lines were drawn to intentionally give him a safe seat.  But Obama won the District by a three-point margin.

Or how about the 48th District in Orange County – which includes Irvine, Laguna Hills and the mansions of Newport Beach?  George Bush carried the District by a 20-point margin in both elections, but Obama won it by over 2,600 votes.  Republican Chris Cox represented the District for years, and when he stepped down in 2005 successfully passed it on to a GOP successor.  Democrats tried in 2006 and 2008, but Congressman John Campbell has so far managed to ward them off.  Now, Irvine City Councilwoman Betty Krom has thrown her hat in the ring – and her campaign kick-off featured Loretta Sanchez.

When you look at the map, the most obvious change is the 25th District – which hugs a huge section of the Nevada border and includes Death Valley, before heading south to include parts of northern Los Angeles County.  The City of Palmdale, home of the late anti-gay bigot Pete Knight is in the District.  It’s always been a safe district for Republican candidates, but Obama managed to win it by a percentage point.  Mormon Congressman Buck McKeon has had the seat since 1992, and has never had to worry about Democrats.  That could change …

But can a candidate like Obama give “coat-tails” for Democrats in Red California?  Ask Dan Lungren and Ken Calvert, two Republican members of Congress.  When Lungren – the GOP’s losing candidate for Governor in 1998 – moved to the Sacramento suburbs to stage a political comeback, he decided to settle in a safe Republican district.  Calvert has represented Riverside and Corona since 1992, and even survived a prostitution scandal early in his career to get re-elected – because the District at the time was so Republican.

For Lungren and Calvert, the state’s demographics are catching up with them.  Obama won both of their districts, and both of them came extremely close to losing their jobs in November – when spirited Democratic challengers took them on.  Both districts have had an influx of suburban sprawl, and now the headache of foreclosures has hit their communities hard.  We’re seeing similar trends in Districts 26 in northern Los Angeles (Dave Dreier), 45 in Palm Springs (Mary Bono) and 50 in San Diego (Brian Bilbray.)  Obama won all of these districts, and a strong Democratic challenger could benefit.

Granted, California still has Republican parts – and progressives were right to defeat the so-called Dirty Tricks Initiative to split up electoral votes by Congressional District.  I have never liked the Electoral College’s “winner-take-all” system – where a state awards all of its electoral votes to the plurality winner.  But until every state splits up their votes to ensure that every minority (not just California Republicans) has a voice in picking our next President, it is unfair and undemocratic.

John McCain won 11 out of California’s 53 Congressional Districts – which means that Republicans in the Golden State are still red, but not dead.  But in three of them – George Radanovich’s 19th in Fresno, Ed Royce’s 40th in Orange County and Dana Rohrabacher’s 46th in Palos Verdes – the margin was surprisingly close.  As the party keeps pandering to its Southern base, it will drift into oblivion in California.  And if a measure to abolish the “two-thirds rule” in the state legislature passes, it will mean the death of the California GOP.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.